Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Canara Bank And Ors. vs S. Ramalingam on 10 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(5)ALD26
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT C.V. Ramulu, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge made in WP No. 30101 of 2000 dated 6-11-2000.
2. By the above said order, the learned Single Judge directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner to fix his pay at Rs. 590.40 ps. from the date of his permanent absorption under the respondents as per the directives issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide proceedings dated 28-2-1996 with all consequential and attendant benefits including arrears of pay within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.
3. According to the writ petitioner, he is entitled for fixation of his salary at Rs. 590.40 ps. as per the instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in their proceedings No. Air/HQ/23043/1004/ SR/PC-3/434/D (Civ-II) dated 28-2-1996. It was also stated that the petitioner was an ex-serviceman served in the Indian Army from 13-2-1959 to 21-11-1967. Thereafter, from 29-3-1968 to 25-6-1979 he served as a Telephone Operator in the Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. Thereafter, he was permanently absorbed in the quota of ex-serviceman in the respondent's Bank with effect from 26-6-1979 and as such he is entitled for fixation of his salary as per the last pay drawn by him while serving as a Telephone Operator with the Air Force Station at Hakimpet, Secunderabad.
4. The appellant-bank filed a detailed counter denying the claim of the petitioner stating that so far as the services rendered by the petitioner as a Telephone Operator from 29-4-1968 to 25-6-1979 are concerned, the said post is only a civil post and therefore the last pay drawn by the petitioner cannot be protected as the said period cannot be treated as service rendered in the armed forces.
5. Initially the bank, has fixed the salary of the respondent employee as per the letter issued by the Government of India at Rs. 590.40 ps. After realizing that the services rendered by the petitioner with the Air Force Station at Hakimpet cannot be treated as the service rendered in the armed forces and therefore the last pay drawn by the petitioner cannot be protected, the bank withdrew the said benefit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge passed the order referred to above.
6. On a closer examination of the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in their proceedings No. Air/HQ/23043/1004/SR/PC-3/434/D (Civ.II) dated 28-2-1996 and the letter of the CGO (Admin), Civil Administration for AOC at Hakimpet dated 1-3-1996, it is clear that the service rendered by the petitioner was a civil service and the same cannot be treated as active/ actual defence service and as such it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to pro rata consideration for the purpose of fixing his salary at Rs. 590.40 ps. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration Clause (1) read with Clause 13 of the proceedings of the Ministry of Defence dated 28-2-1977 and the letter dated 1-3-1996 of the CGO (Admin) Air Force Station, Hakimpet while allowing the writ petition. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge does not stand the scrutiny of law and as such, the same is set aside. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
7. However, it is brought to our notice that after the disposal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner was paid all the benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge, In view of the fact that the writ petitioner has rendered service in the Armed Forces for a considerably long period and he is at the verge of retirement, we feel it appropriate that the amount already paid to him need not be recovered.